Horrific accident on the Ashton Canal

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:20:59 +0100, Martin Clark <martin@spl.at>
wrote:

>Dave Mayall wrote...
>>2) They can drink themselves silly, without anybody stopping them.
>
>Would it be in poor taste to suggest that they get legless?

Absolutely.

Well done that man.

"Dave Mayall" <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7kq764dfslvdc1pac0svgagmks08maktb0@********...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:16:12 +0100, Brian J Goggin
> <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote:
>
> Why are you so fixated with what damages a court might award? Is that
> all that matters in life.
>
I think Brian's winding you up, if my guess is right. To great effect, too!

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:18:39 +0100, "MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage |
at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com> wrote:

>Oh, but I believe Dave's experience of other teenagers is
>extensive. He is involved with Scouting, which includes a very
>wide spectrum of society. Then, of course, there's his family.
>(How's Tufty?). Thus, his evidence for what teenagers do, both
>good and bad, is *very* strong.

It may well be (although that does not make it reliable). However, it
provides no evidence of what actually happened on this occasion.

bjg

"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
news:doih6455d7s7allc1pd377jfb9j33jea8t@********...
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:18:39 +0100, "MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage |
> at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com> wrote:
>
>>Oh, but I believe Dave's experience of other teenagers is
>>extensive. He is involved with Scouting, which includes a very
>>wide spectrum of society. Then, of course, there's his family.
>>(How's Tufty?). Thus, his evidence for what teenagers do, both
>>good and bad, is *very* strong.
>
> It may well be (although that does not make it reliable).

Given that my sample size is larger, I would suspect that my research
(although I didn't know it was research at the time) is probably more
accurate than the study you reported.

> However, it
> provides no evidence of what actually happened on this occasion.

Never claimed that it did.

I do claim that it provides me with an insight into what has very likely
happened.

It is speculation, but it is informed speculation.

"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
news:6rih64pp1m8ejjsgos60a3itb7pba5q6mf@********...
>
> bjg

Keep going. I *love* your arguments :-)

I would argue with you myself but I always lose, and Mr Mayall does it so
much better than I.

"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
news:6rih64pp1m8ejjsgos60a3itb7pba5q6mf@********...
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:20:31 +0100, Dave Mayall
> <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

>>There can be nobody with a greater interest in keeping me alive than
>>me.
>
> You are perfectly entitled to make rules for your own conduct.
> However, that's not what we were discussing: we were talking about
> what everybody ("each of us") should do. Others, either singly or
> collectively, are entitled to make different rules --- and have done
> so.

Individually, it is entirely up to them. If some people wish to go around
with a cavalier attitude to their own personal safety, then that is up to
them.

However, they cannot, at the same time, expect the rest of us to cough up
more money, either to guard against the dangers that they have opted out of
worrying about., or to pay for the consequences of their foolhardy
decisions.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:10:06 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
<paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:

>I would argue with you myself but I always lose, and Mr Mayall does it so
>much better than I.

Lose? But we are seeking after truth: there are neither winners nor
losers.

bjg

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:12:35 +0100, Dave Mayall
<david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

>It is a sample, a (pseudo)random group of individuals, that I have
>observed on numerous occasions in stressed situations, and noted their
>responses to those situations.

That doesn't make it a sample. What is the population? How was the
"sample" selected? And what is the relationship between the Ashton
group and the population? (You need not answer those questions.)

Your approach is equivalent to an assertion that, because a
50-year-old man once robbed a bank, all 50-year-olds should be charged
with something because, being 50, they're bound to have committed some
sort of crime.

>It is clear to me that there is no realistic prospect that any
>enquiries, however thorough will find evidence to refute the central
>planks of my theory about the incident.

Gracious. Does this mean that you're able to predict the entire course
of an investigation, or just that no evidence will change your mind?

bjg

"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
news:bo3k64ll421uh493edvfsaid2jrma31fud@********...
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:12:35 +0100, Dave Mayall
> <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>It is a sample, a (pseudo)random group of individuals, that I have
>>observed on numerous occasions in stressed situations, and noted their
>>responses to those situations.
>
> That doesn't make it a sample. What is the population? How was the
> "sample" selected? And what is the relationship between the Ashton
> group and the population? (You need not answer those questions.)

The sample consists of approximately 1% of the 14-15 y/o population of a
town some 3 miles from the site of this incident in each of the last 10
years.
The sample was, so far as I can determine random, and consists of those I
met through Scouting (members, and importantly non-members who came along on
1-2 occasions)
The relationship between the sample and the Ashton group is that they (in
several cases) attend the same schools. It is highly probable that none of
the group on the bridge is more than 2 degrees of separation from a young
person known to me.

> Your approach is equivalent to an assertion that, because a
> 50-year-old man once robbed a bank, all 50-year-olds should be charged
> with something because, being 50, they're bound to have committed some
> sort of crime.

Not at all.

It is quite simply a statement of pretty well accepted theories about how
GROUPS of young people behave.

We are talking about Group Dynamics, not individual ones.

>>It is clear to me that there is no realistic prospect that any
>>enquiries, however thorough will find evidence to refute the central
>>planks of my theory about the incident.
>
> Gracious. Does this mean that you're able to predict the entire course
> of an investigation, or just that no evidence will change your mind?

Evidence will, of course, change my mind.

I should be very surprised if any such evidence is found.